I'm back in the darkness of uncertainty a bit. I'm not sure when "the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son" was anathemized by a Council or someone universally regarded as a Church Father by 1015, the date Rome accepted the altered Creed.

Or does it not have to be that explicit for it to be a known heresy and the famous Canon 15 of the First and Second Council to apply?

Wherever even the last two or three are gathered together in His name, there He is in their midst.

Justin Kolodziej wrote:I'm back in the darkness of uncertainty a bit. I'm not sure when "the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son" was anathemized by a Council or someone universally regarded as a Church Father by 1015, the date Rome accepted the altered Creed.

Or does it not have to be that explicit for it to be a known heresy and the famous Canon 15 of the First and Second Council to apply?

I am not sure you will find an anahema that predates the adoption of the Filioque. Of course earlier Ecumenical Councils forbade the alteration of the Creed. The 1583 council clearly anahematized teaching of the Filioque.

Look up the Decree of the Council of Blachernae under Patriarch St. Gregory II of Cyprus. Additionally, and more importantly, the issue was specifically addressed at the often called 8th Ecumenical Council in 879-80 with Pope John VIII's legates and St. Photius; it condemned the alteration.

In Christ,

Fr. Enoch

“We cannot destroy the Ecclesiastical Canons, who are defenders and keepers of the Canons, not their transgressors.” (Pope St. Martin the Confessor)

Hieromonk Enoch wrote:Look up the Decree of the Council of Blachernae under Patriarch St. Gregory II of Cyprus. Additionally, and more importantly, the issue was specifically addressed at the often called 8th Ecumenical Council in 879-80 with Pope John VIII's legates and St. Photius; it condemned the alteration.

There is also a synodikon for the Monday of Pentecost similar to the one of the triumph of orthodoxy i.e with anathemas, that is directly targeting Filioque and it diverse interpretation. It dates back some year after 1204 and is said to have been approved by the 4 patriarchates then.

It is important to note that the phrase: "Proceeds from the father and the Son" actually has two meanings.

There is an Orthodox sense in which this phrase can be affirmed. That is, it is a true statement when understood properly. The Father is the Sole Cause of the entire trinity. The personal attribute of Causality does not belong to the Son or the Spirit. Nevertheless, the Spirit is indeed manifested THROUGH the Son, and not just in that he is sent into the World by the Son, but he is eternally manifested by him. This is the teaching of St. Gregory of Palamas and Gregory of Cyprus and many others. One analogy I like to use to explain this is the analogy of the Sun, Light, and heat.

The Sun produces light and heat. The property of heat is to provide warmth, the property of light is to provide illumination, and the property of the Sun is to cause both. BUT The Light itself BEARS the heat of the Sun, but it is not the cause of the heat. So where the Light of the Sun is present, the Heat of the Sun is also present (In nature and ideally of course). So we can say that the Heat of the Sun Proceeds from the Sun, through the Light. But the Light itself is not the cause, the Sun alone is. In this sense, you could say that the Heat proceeds from the Sun and the Light. Understanding of course that the light does not posses the property of CAUSING the heat, but of bearing it from the Sun, its source.

This is EXACTLY what St Maximos the Confessor tells us the Latins in his time (The 7th Century) believed:

“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….

BUT, BUT, BUT! What happened was that somewhere down the Line, the Latins corrupted this, and began to understand this phrase, not in an Orthodox way, but in a novel and heretical way:

St. Photios the great is very clear as are all the fathers, especially St. John of Damascus, that the PERSONAL properties of each of the members of the Trinity is unique to them, and them alone. So the Father alone is CAUSE, the Son alone is BEGOTTEN and the Spirit alone Proceeds. The PERSONS of the Trinity have their PERSONAL origin in the PERSON of the Father. Understand this, it is essential: The Father PERSONALLY begets the PERSON of the Son and PERSONALLY Spirates the PERSON of the Holy Spirit. The Latins affirmed this. So there can be no mixing of persons or personal qualities, so the Son CANNOT be in any way a CAUSE without becoming obscured with the Father, because it is not for him to BE Cause, but Caused!

But NOW by the time of the council of Lyons, the Romans were teaching that the Spirit Proceeds, hypostatically and Personally from the FATHER AND THE SON as from a SINGLE PRINCIPLE! THis is clearly heretical, because it set up a duality, a dyad that is inconceivable. So we ask the Papists a simple question:

Is Causality a Personal Quality or a Natural Attribute? And this is where they tie the noose around their own necks:

1. If Causality is a Natural attribute, then why does the Holy Spirit Not posses Causality and himself Generate a fourth person, and then a fifth and then a sixth, ad infinitum? By denying the Spirit Causality, you say he is of a different nature than the Father and the Son (The Dyad) and that he must therefore be a creature. How is it that a Natural Property can only be had by TWO members of the Trinity and not all Three? Does this not result in the exclusion of the Spirit from the Godhead? And perhaps this is why he plays such a small Role in the development of Western Theology...

2. BUT If they say Causality is a PERSONAL Property, then how is it possible that it be shared by the SON?! Does this not result in the confusion of the persons? Is this not Semi-Sabellianism? They May say "The Son has all things from the Father!" We say, "Except Fatherhood, which is Causality!"

So the big question boils don to this: When did the Orthodox understandinf of "Filioque" become abandoned for the Scholastic version of "Filioque"?

Blessed is the man who has volunteered to hold and keep until the end of his life our holy Orthodox faith, the faith of the one Church of Christ and our mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church.